Thank you for posting this (#63). To think that state's rights may impose on our Constitution when in conflict with one or more of it's provisions (limitations on government) does not, a conservative make. It reminds me of one in search of paper to stoke a fire and, finding none, reaches for this 'parchment' (with many signatures) and proceeds to light it and toss it into the stove.
The notion that states could undo protections galvanized in the union to which they voluntarily subscribed is anything but conservative. I'll gladly join you in shoving this fact in the faces of those who continue to perpetuate this fraud.
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
-- US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
This ruling has stood for 132 years and it stands today. When it comes to the RKBA, state laws are limited only by their state constitutions.
Now, if telling you this makes me a non-conservative, so be it. But you need to know who protects your individual gun rights -- and it ain't the second amendment. If it did, we'd have concealed carry in every state, wouldn't we?
I am not going to just sit around, complacent, thinking that my individual RKBA is protected from state infringement by the second amendment when it isn't -- sounds like something Sarah Brady would want me to believe.
Beware of the sub rosa gun control supporters on this forum who want you to believe your rights are protected when they're not. They're after your guns, either intentionally or through their own willful ignorance.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.
Thank you for posting this (#63). To think that state's rights may impose on our Constitution when in conflict with one or more of it's provisions (limitations on government) does not, a conservative make. It reminds me of one in search of paper to stoke a fire and, finding none, reaches for this 'parchment' (with many signatures) and proceeds to light it and toss it into the stove.
The notion that states could undo protections galvanized in the union to which they voluntarily subscribed is anything but conservative. I'll gladly join you in shoving this fact in the faces of those who continue to perpetuate this fraud.
The 1875 Cruikshank decision is often cited by socialist/statists:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
This ruling has been discredited since it was first made by a 'jim crow' court, intent on keeping ex-slaves in their place.
Now, FR's Sarah Brady types use Cruikshank to justify their sub rosa gun control efforts; -- and it is intentional, bet on it.